"The Lord says: Be submissive, wives. You are to be submissive to your husbands," [Michele] Bachmann said at the time, according to the [Washington] Post. Her campaign hasn't disputed the remarks.
On Thursday, the Washington Examiner's Byron York, a conservative columnist who was one of the moderators of the 2012 debate, asked Bachmann directly about that quote.
"As president, would you be submissive to your husband?" he asked, a question that prompted the crowd to erupt in loud boos.
After a slight pause, Bachmann smiled and thanked York for his question.
"Marcus and I will be married for 33 years this September 10th," she said. "What submission means to us … it means respect. I respect my husband. He's a wonderful, godly man and a great father, and he respects me as his wife. That's how we operate our marriage."
Obviously, Bachmann was lying about what the word submission means. No doubt it means something very different to her as opposed to what it meant to Ayn Rand, but it doesnt simply mean respect. I think the issue raises same fascinating questionswhether or not you agree that femininity means hero-worship as it did for Rand. There is a definite sense in which a female is submissive to the male sexually. Quite aside from all that religious crap, there is something going on here psychologically that could potentially present a problem for a woman president. I think the fact that this issue came up means that it does have significance, even if the public discussions do not begin to address what that significance really is.
Excerpts from Rands 1968 article:
I do not think that a rational woman can want to be president. Observe that I did not say she would be unable to do the job; I said that she could not want it. It is not a matter of her ability, but of her values.
...when it comes to the post of president, ...do not ask: "Could she do the job and would it be good for the country?" Conceivably, she could and it would - but what would it do to her?
The issue is primarily psychological. . .
...the higher [a woman's] view of masculinity, the more severely demanding her standards. It means that she never loses the awareness of her own sexual identity and theirs. It means that a properly feminine woman does not treat men as if she were their pal, sister, mother - or leader.
Now consider the meaning of the presidency: in all his professional relationships, within the entire sphere of his work, the president is the highest authority; he is the "chief executive," the "commander-in-chief." ...In the performance of his duties, a president does not deal with equals, but only with inferiors (not inferiors as persons, but in respect to the hierarchy of their positions, their work, and their responsibilities).
This, for a rational woman, would be an unbearable situation. ... To act as the superior, the leader, virtually the ruler of all the men she deals with, would be an excruciating psychological torture. It would require a total depersonalization, an utter selflessness, and an incommunicable loneliness; she would have to suppress (or repress) every personal aspect of her own character and attitude; she could not be herself, i.e., a woman; she would have to function only as a mind, not as a person, i.e., as a thinker devoid of personal values - a dangerously artificial dichotomy which no one could sustain for long. By the nature of her duties and daily activities, she would beome the most unfeminine, sexless, metaphysically inappropriate, and rationally revolting figure of all: a matriarch.
For a woman to seek or desire the presidency is, in fact, so terrible a prospect of spiritual self-immolation that the woman who would seek it is psychologically unworthy of the job.
From An Answer to Readers (About a Woman President),
The Objectivist, Dec. 1968
Edited by Dennis Hardin, 12 August 2011 - 02:40 PM.